Gerhard Grasser wrote:
> Ever considered free choice minerals for the stock?
Yes. Most of us have looked into it. There are a few charlatans trying to
sell these products to unsuspecting farmers, even at the Wisconsin Grazing
Conference one year. They were not very pleased with me when I pointed out
the downsides to using separate minerals. They finally gave me a "scientific
proof" research paper done by a professor. When I got home I took a good
look at it. They had compeletely misrepresented what the scientist actually
said in an article. Not in any actual scientific study. They were probably
well meaning, but still not the kind of people we need in grazing. It is
hard enough to make any money with agriculture so anything that makes the
bottom line worse, needs to be looked at skeptically at best and then
carefully researched if there appears to be some value.
> Use the soil test to
> identify the minerals out of balance and then make these individually
> available at all times. Don't mix them together. This is so the stock can
> chose what it needs when it needs it. Include kelp and you will have the
> complete catalyser to enable optimum mineral uptake.
Why would you want to have minerals available in the plant at tremendously
increased cost over direct feeding of the minerals? One might argue some
kind of holistic concept, if it could be shown to be sustainable. But I have
not seen anything as of yet. I have seen quite the opposite where free
choice has proven to be one of the most ineffective approaches ever found to
include trace minerals in the diet of livestock. And many of the minerals
are deadly poison if taken in not that much larger an amount than the
scientifically measured amount that works properly.
> It is amazing what stock will do to get their mineral fill. Ever tried
> copper sulphate? It is sooo unpalatable and yet they will take it if there
> is no other source.
Wouldn't it be better to include the right amount of copper in the mineral
mix to begin with? You have careful control of the total consumption. And
at a fraction of the cost of spreading the minerals on the soil for plants
to uptake.
> Animals need to browse just as we do, so free choice is only sensible.
It may seem sensible to the unscientifically trained person, or those who
have an agenda such as selling a product in larger quantities. But is it
really sensible in terms of sustainable agriculture?
If anyone is promoting such an idea, the first thing I would ask the person
if they are selling this kind of product and, if so, do they have some good
research that proves this idea has merit? And finally, I would ask what is
the cost of this approach versus range mineral feeding?
Sincerely,
Rick Williams
Misty Ridge Farm
Grass-Fed Beef and farm produce
Viroqua, WI
www.mistyridgefarm.com
